JASODA BAI Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Defendant's second appeal against whom suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THERE was an agreement of sale dated June 24, 1975, of the suit property belonging to the Defendant known as Baithak wale comprising of a room, a Jakri, a bath room, a Uterine and Chandiwari and fitted with a tap bearing house No. 3 -H/122 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - A sum of Rs. 15,000/ - is said to have been paid in advance as earnest money. The balance amount of Rs. 5,000/ - was to be paid before the Sub Registrar. When the Defendant failed to perform her part of the agreement, the present suit was filed on January 14, 1977. In the written statement, the plea taken was that the Plaintiff is a money lender and thus gets such agreement executed from the lances as collateral security. According to the Defendant, she had executed a similar agreement in favour of the Plaintiff Madan Lal in the year 1971 for a sum of Rs. 7,000/ - and then in the year 1973 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - and the third one dated June 24, 1975, for sum of Rs. 20,000/. In these circumstances, the agreement executed was not a genuine one.

(3.) THE trial Court found that the Defendant had committed a breach of the agreement dated June 24, 1975, and she had received a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - in advance as earnest money under the said agreement. The Plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. It was also found that the Plaintiff it entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - as damages in case the decree for specific performance of the agreement is not granted. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the Plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale on payment of Rs. 5,000/ - plus the expenses of stamp and registration charges. However, it was also observed that the disputed house has been sold in Court auction during the pendency of the suit on September 29, 1979. The same will not affect the right of the Plaintiff to get the sale deed executed from the auction purchaser who has since purchased the house in dispute in Court auction It may be stated that the Plaintiff never impleaded the auction purchaser as a party during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court. In appeal, filed on behalf of the Defendant vendor, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree for specific performance of the agreement passed by the trial Court in favour of the Plaintiff Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendant filed the second appeal in this Court.